Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Rezoning Voc Rehab topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee holds vocational‑rehab rezoning; staff cites comp‑plan conflict, applicants offer deed restrictions and FRD option
Summary
Greenville County PND held CZ-20226-025 for 3799 Old Easley Bridge Road after staff said RM10 multifamily density would conflict with the comprehensive plan; applicants said they can pursue an FRD and offered deed restrictions to limit future redevelopment, and county staff will search title history for possible deed reversion language.
The Greenville County Planning and Development Committee on June 1 held rezoning case CZ-20226-025, which would rezone 16.74 acres at 3799 Old Easley Bridge Road from RS to RM10 to allow a care center associated with the SC Vocational Rehabilitation Department.
Don, the planning staff member presenting the docket, said staff recommended denial because the county’s comprehensive plan designates the site as a suburban neighborhood with an expected density of three to five dwelling units per acre — while RM10 allows up to 10 units per acre. The Planning Commission, Don said, indicated it would be more amenable to a proposal submitted as an FRD (flexible review district) with negotiated conditions.
A council member raised a possible deed restriction or reversion requirement tied to an earlier county transaction; staff said they had not found the restriction in the current deed and would search additional records. Scott Winber, who identified himself as general counsel for the vocational rehab applicant, said he had not seen such a restriction in the deed and welcomed the opportunity to review any documents. Wes Stokes, the project manager for the vocational rehab effort, said the applicants sought to rebuild a facility lost to fire in 2016–17 and were prepared to add deed restrictions to address local concerns.
Committee members discussed options: deny the RM10 request, hold to allow the applicant to resubmit as an FRD, or allow an FRD application to run concurrently while holding the current application. A motion to hold the rezoning passed with the explicit understanding that the applicants could pursue an FRD application at the same time. The committee asked staff and the applicants to coordinate on deed/title reviews and to circulate any pertinent documents before second reading.
